Are You Smarter Than a Fifth Grader?
Self-identified liberals and Democrats do badly on questions of basic economics.

By DANIEL B. KLEIN
Who is better informed about the policy choices facing the country—liberals, conservatives or libertarians? According to a Zogby International survey that I write about in the May issue of Econ Journal Watch, the answer is unequivocal: The left flunks Econ 101.

Zogby researcher Zeljka Buturovic and I considered the 4,835 respondents' (all American adults) answers to eight survey questions about basic economics. We also asked the respondents about their political leanings: progressive/very liberal; liberal; moderate; conservative; very conservative; and libertarian.

Rather than focusing on whether respondents answered a question correctly, we instead looked at whether they answered incorrectly. A response was counted as incorrect only if it was flatly unenlightened.

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll: "Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Basic economics acknowledges that whatever redeeming features a restriction may have, it increases the cost of production and exchange, making goods and services less affordable. There may be exceptions to the general case, but they would be atypical.

Therefore, we counted as incorrect responses of "somewhat disagree" and "strongly disagree." This treatment gives leeway for those who think the question is ambiguous or half right and half wrong. They would likely answer "not sure," which we do not count as incorrect.

In this case, percentage of conservatives answering incorrectly was 22.3%, very conservatives 17.6% and libertarians 15.7%. But the percentage of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly was 67.6% and liberals 60.1%. The pattern was not an anomaly.

The other questions were: 1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree). 2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree). 3) Rent control leads to housing shortages (unenlightened answer: disagree). 4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree). 5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree). 6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree). 7) Minimum wage laws raise unemployment (unenlightened answer: disagree).

How did the six ideological groups do overall? Here they are, best to worst, with an average number of incorrect responses from 0 to 8: Very conservative, 1.30; Libertarian, 1.38; Conservative, 1.67; Moderate, 3.67; Liberal, 4.69; Progressive/very liberal, 5.26.

Americans in the first three categories do reasonably well. But the left has trouble squaring economic thinking with their political psychology, morals and aesthetics.

To be sure, none of the eight questions specifically challenge the political sensibilities of conservatives and libertarians. Still, not all of the eight questions are tied directly to left-wing concerns about inequality and redistribution. In particular, the questions about mandatory licensing, the standard of living, the definition of monopoly, and free trade do not specifically challenge leftist sensibilities.

Yet on every question the left did much worse. On the monopoly question, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (31%) was more than twice that of conservatives (13%) and more than four times that of libertarians (7%). On the question about living standards, the portion of progressive/very liberals answering incorrectly (61%) was more than four times that of conservatives (13%) and almost three times that of libertarians (21%).

Adam Smith described political economy as "a branch of the science of a statesman or legislator." Governmental power joined with wrongheadedness is something terrible, but all too common. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.

Mr. Klein is a professor of economics at George Mason University. This op-ed is based on an article published in the May 2010 issue of the journal he edits, Econ Journal Watch, a project sponsored by the American Institute for Economic Research. The article is at: http://econjwatch.org/articles/economic-enlightenment-in-relation-to-college-going-ideology-and-other-variables-a-zogby-survey-of-americans

I wouldn't put it like that. But liberals have pretty poor conception of economics. The dynamics of this board bear this out. I think this is because of warped and wrongheaded ideas like "social" justice (as opposed to just plain old "justice.")

alanm

06-08-2010, 10:07 PM

conservatives are smart liberals are stupid etcAs far as basic concepts of economics are concerned. :D

mikey23545

06-08-2010, 10:09 PM

Shocking.

Shocking, I say...

Direckshun

06-08-2010, 10:14 PM

I wouldn't put it like that. But liberals have pretty poor conception of economics. The dynamics of this board bear this out. I think this is because of warped and wrongheaded ideas like "social" justice (as opposed to just plain old "justice.")

I think it's honestly because both ideologies have their historically-committed priorities.

Conservative commitments over time seem to be economics, military, and certain civil liberties. Liberal commitments over time seem to be civil rights, diplomacy, and certain civil liberties.

Even as a liberal, I can confess it's best to have a mixture of both.

HonestChieffan

06-08-2010, 10:30 PM

Liberals have no need to understand economics. Money comes from government. Government takes care of the details and all the stuff like cash flow, income, outgo Thats just busy work.

Food comes from stamps, cash comes from Obama.

Direckshun

06-08-2010, 10:37 PM

Liberals have no need to understand economics. Money comes from government. Government takes care of the details and all the stuff like cash flow, income, outgo Thats just busy work.

Food comes from stamps, cash comes from Obama.

I just imagine you in a gerbil cage, drinking straight from your talk radio sippy bottle.

http://www.futurepets.com/images/ss/sp61930.jpg

Taco John

06-08-2010, 10:42 PM

I think it's honestly because both ideologies have their historically-committed priorities.

Conservative commitments over time seem to be economics, military, and certain civil liberties. Liberal commitments over time seem to be civil rights, diplomacy, and certain civil liberties.

Even as a liberal, I can confess it's best to have a mixture of both.

I can think of little more important than civil liberties. This is why I think an understanding of economics is the most important thing that someone concerned with politics should have.

It's a shame that leftists don't understand the correlation. And for this, they end up working counter productively towards their aims. But to their credit, it works out politically for them. Keeping poor people poor (and dependant on govt.) works to their electoral advantage.

Mr. Kotter

06-08-2010, 10:56 PM

Lumping those who "somewhat" and "stongly" "disagree" or "agree" into one group....is very bad research methodology, and entirely discredits this guy's "work."

It's the lazy researcher's way, to a predetermined and preferred "response." In the language of propaganda, it's called card-stacking--esp[ecially given the specific wording of some of the questions.

Framing questions fairly, for objective responses, requires more effort and scholarly application of research methods than this dude's grant from the Heritage Foundation, or some such group, didn't care much about.

BucEyedPea

06-08-2010, 11:18 PM

Liberals have no need to understand economics. Money comes from government..... cash comes from Obama.

O.M.G. That is so true! ROFL

Methodology of elites might say otherwise.....but we see this daily just talking to lefties.

Taco John

06-08-2010, 11:30 PM

Lumping those who "somewhat" and "stongly" "disagree" or "agree" into one group....is very bad research methodology, and entirely discredits this guy's "work."

That's a silly, nonsensical take. The common denominator is "agree" or "disagree." The "somewhat" or "strongly" are nothng but degrees of that denominator. Grouping them together hardly discredits the reserach. But you saying so discredits your ideas on the matter.

It's always amusing to watch Kotter butcher a take with horrible logic and general absence of reasoning.

Direckshun

06-09-2010, 12:18 AM

I can think of little more important than civil liberties. This is why I think an understanding of economics is the most important thing that someone concerned with politics should have.

It's a shame that leftists don't understand the correlation. And for this, they end up working counter productively towards their aims. But to their credit, it works out politically for them. Keeping poor people poor (and dependant on govt.) works to their electoral advantage.

You need to learn some new material.

The same note over and over again makes for a pretty shitty song.

Taco John

06-09-2010, 12:44 AM

You need to learn some new material.

The same note over and over again makes for a pretty shitty song.

If this was American Idol, you'd have a great point.

Direckshun

06-09-2010, 01:12 AM

If this was American Idol, you'd have a great point.

It's an internet bulletin board, and you're boring me.

Taco John

06-09-2010, 01:54 AM

It's an internet bulletin board, and you're boring me.

Yeah. That's what the thread is about. Leftists don't like to talk about economics. I'm not sure why you bothered to even come into a thread with the word "economics" in the thread title. That should have been the first tip off that you were getting in over your head.

But, shhhhhh.... Direckshun is bored. He'd rather talk about programs that people need. Economics is boring.

Direckshun

06-09-2010, 02:44 AM

Yeah. That's what the thread is about. Leftists don't like to talk about economics.

I'd love to talk economics, if you were actually discussing economics. But as usual, you immediately veered into your usual ideological platitudes before you got anywhere useful.

If the variety in your political discourse were a salad, it'd be made entirely of croutons.

AustinChief

06-09-2010, 04:34 AM

Is this guy seriously a professor??? I COMPLETELY agree with his conclusion... but his methodology is simply ridiculous. I feel extremely sorry for our youth who take classes from idiots like this... whether they are on the right or left...

Besides his piss poor, shoddy methods.. some of his questions are ridiculous as well...

There are PLENTY of reputable economists and even studies that would refute his takes on these... I do NOT want to get into a debate here but even I (an extreme fiscal conservative in many ways) can see how someone could be VERY well versed in economics and get these "wrong"

my conclusion... "study" FAIL

BucEyedPea

06-09-2010, 07:08 AM

I'd love to talk economics, if you were actually discussing economics. But as usual, you immediately veered into your usual ideological platitudes before you got anywhere useful.

If the variety in your political discourse were a salad, it'd be made entirely of croutons.

The fact that you don't think he's discussing economics, but ideology, confirms the results of this survey. That's you veering off into ideology. The first step to
getting better is recognizing what economics is.

BTW 7/8 ths of life is economics.

BucEyedPea

06-09-2010, 07:11 AM

Is this guy seriously a professor??? I COMPLETELY agree with his conclusion... but his methodology is simply ridiculous. I feel extremely sorry for our youth who take classes from idiots like this... whether they are on the right or left...

Besides his piss poor, shoddy methods.. some of his questions are ridiculous as well...

There are PLENTY of reputable economists and even studies that would refute his takes on these... I do NOT want to get into a debate here but even I (an extreme fiscal conservative in many ways) can see how someone could be VERY well versed in economics and get these "wrong"

my conclusion... "study" FAIL
There are plenty of reputable ( hate that word because it's just opinion) who would agree with it too.

Economics isn't so much conservative or liberal but has schools like classical, Keynesian, Monetarism, Austrian, Neo-Classical. The one's those reputable ( my guess is that you mean mainstream) one's used today are Keynesian with some mix of mercantilism and classical. Unfortunately, this is on the left and the right. But I won't argue it further.

penchief

06-09-2010, 07:13 AM

Liberals have no need to understand economics. Money comes from government. Government takes care of the details and all the stuff like cash flow, income, outgo Thats just busy work.

Food comes from stamps, cash comes from Obama.

This is a falsehood.

penchief

06-09-2010, 07:14 AM

O.M.G. That is so true! ROFL

Methodology of elites might say otherwise.....but we see this daily just talking to lefties.

No it's not.

mlyonsd

06-09-2010, 07:31 AM

. Realizing that many of our leaders and their constituents are economically unenlightened sheds light on the troubles that surround us.

No chit Sherlock.

Direckshun

06-09-2010, 07:40 AM

The fact that you don't think he's discussing economics, but ideology, confirms the results of this survey. That's you veering off into ideology. The first step to
getting better is recognizing what economics is.

You tell me where my point of entry on economics is here:

It's a shame that leftists don't understand the correlation. And for this, they end up working counter productively towards their aims. But to their credit, it works out politically for them. Keeping poor people poor (and dependant on govt.) works to their electoral advantage.

This is all political pablum, about electoral advantage and politics, and about how liberalism is self-defeating. If there's an economic argument I'm missing here, it's either completely unexpressed or completely unexplained. So who's veering?

Those are mildly interesting ideological and political issues, albeit ones he's raised about 1,000,000,000 x's before.

Either way, there's basically nothing to reply to.

petegz28

06-09-2010, 09:32 AM

There are plenty of reputable ( hate that word because it's just opinion) who would agree with it too.

Economics isn't so much conservative or liberal but has schools like classical, Keynesian, Monetarism, Austrian, Neo-Classical. The one's those reputable ( my guess is that you mean mainstream) one's used today are Keynesian with some mix of mercantilism and classical. Unfortunately, this is on the left and the right. But I won't argue it further.

Let me simplify this.....there are people who understand how money works, and there are people who have no fucking clue.

petegz28

06-09-2010, 09:35 AM

You tell me where my point of entry on economics is here:

This is all political pablum, about electoral advantage and politics, and about how liberalism is self-defeating. If there's an economic argument I'm missing here, it's either completely unexpressed or completely unexplained. So who's veering?

Those are mildly interesting ideological and political issues, albeit ones he's raised about 1,000,000,000 x's before.

Either way, there's basically nothing to reply to.

Oh man, there are severe economic implications here. I guess you want to gloss over the obvious fact that economics is used as a tool for politicans to exploit and pander to their voter base?

This whole argument is based on economics and how you get the cliche of Leftists basing their decisions on emotion rather than sound economics.

I'll give you the HC bill as a prime example of how economics are used to pander to a base of voters. In this case, bad economics.

A) it does absolutely nothing to reduce costs
B) it does absolutely nothing to fix the financial aspect of the HC industry
C) it makes those who support it feel good that the Fed Gov "did something about it"

petegz28

06-09-2010, 09:38 AM

We can also use Fannie and Freddie as a good example of how the Left doesn't seem to "get it" when it comes to economics.

banyon

06-09-2010, 09:50 AM

Wall Street Journal:

Consider one of the economic propositions in the December 2008 poll:

Basically this poll should have been titled "DO you agree with the absolute libertarian POV, yes or no?, if not, U R a DUMMY!"

"Restrictions on housing development make housing less affordable." People were asked if they: 1) strongly agree; 2) somewhat agree; 3) somewhat disagree; 4) strongly disagree; 5) are not sure.

Depends on what kind of restrictions they are talking about. Not developing a piece of land, or restricting property use to low income/affordable housing, or any multitude of others.

1) Mandatory licensing of professional services increases the prices of those services (unenlightened answer: disagree).

I think this answer is correct, though why it is an essential component of economic knowledge is pretty questionable. It's more knowledge of the effect of regulatory policy, which is more of a governmental studies concept.

2) Overall, the standard of living is higher today than it was 30 years ago (unenlightened answer: disagree).

the author of this question is unfamiliar with the idea of multiple types of averages and inflation. Measured in inflation-indexed median terms, the standard of living is not better than it was 30 years ago, particularly if you take into account debt-to-income ratios.

In some cases, this is true, but it isn't necessarily true if there is plenty of development and construction in other areas of town.

4) A company with the largest market share is a monopoly (unenlightened answer: agree).

This is not the technical definition, so potentially this answer is correct, but it is also true that the company with the largest share can be a monopoly. This question trades on people's misunderstanding of necessary and sufficient conditions, which most people (left or right) don't in fact understand.

5) Third World workers working for American companies overseas are being exploited (unenlightened answer: agree).

This question is patently wrong. There are countless investigations and documentaries on this topic, whether we are talking about Cathie Lee Gifford's sweatshops that were shut down, or Nike's indonesian plants, or the Chinese workers who are forced to live in squalid conditions, ad infinitum. Pretty much someone would have to be blind not to understand this is occurring. Is it occurring everywhere? No. Is it occurring some places? Yes, beyond any doubt. Pretty much you have to believe that people working for a wage can't be exploited (that is anything short of outright slavery) to agree with this question.

6) Free trade leads to unemployment (unenlightened answer: agree).

Unregulated, multi-national corporatist free trade has absolutely led to unemployment. We've been losing manufacturing jobs here in the US for 30 years to free trade, and it has spread to most other industries. You'd pretty much have to have your head in a hole in the ground to disagree with this.

This has been the libertarian credo for quite some time, but as I always ask, where is the data? Clinton raised min. wages 2x in his term and neither lead to any increased unemployment in the data.

In short this poll is emblematic of this anti-government rhetoric. Binary logic is all that is allowed. Subtlety and nuance in understanding complex issues is disfavored in lieu of rhetorically charged diatribes. Above all, an intellectually unmerited sense of egotistical self-assurance in the absolute monopoly it has on the truth must be maintained, even in the face of rather obvious flaws or paucity of empricial support. It's understandable why the ridiculo-ideologues would seize on this as some sort of talismanic proof of the accuracy of their faith-based convictions.

banyon

06-09-2010, 09:54 AM

Oh man, there are severe economic implications here. I guess you want to gloss over the obvious fact that economics is used as a tool for politicans to exploit and pander to their voter base?

This whole argument is based on economics and how you get the cliche of Leftists basing their decisions on emotion rather than sound economics.

I'll give you the HC bill as a prime example of how economics are used to pander to a base of voters. In this case, bad economics.

A) it does absolutely nothing to reduce costs
B) it does absolutely nothing to fix the financial aspect of the HC industry
C) it makes those who support it feel good that the Fed Gov "did something about it"

Those are policy defects, they have nothing to do with a failure to understand economics. They have to do with a failure of the understanding of policymaking and the legislative process.

petegz28

06-09-2010, 10:05 AM

Those are policy defects, they have nothing to do with a failure to understand economics. They have to do with a failure of the understanding of policymaking and the legislative process.

Oh, on the contrary, Mr. Banyon. Those who crafted this bill surely understand economics. Those who supported the bill (voter base) obviously have no clue of economics or they would not have supported it.

banyon

06-09-2010, 10:10 AM

Oh, on the contrary, Mr. Banyon. Those who crafted this bill surely understand economics. Those who supported the bill (voter base) obviously have no clue of economics or they would not have supported it.

This bill was not passed or opposed based on an understanding of economics.

Most of the people opposed to this bill, did not do it on an pure economic basis either (and may not have had a nuanced understanding of the discipline either).

petegz28

06-09-2010, 10:32 AM

This bill was not passed or opposed based on an understanding of economics.

Most of the people opposed to this bill, did not do it on an pure economic basis either (and may not have had a nuanced understanding of the discipline either).

Again, I disagree. Most of the people opposed the specific bill because it did nothing to address what needed to be fixed. Which was purely economic. Most people supported HC reform. Most people opposed this bill because of the reasons I stated earlier. It did nothing to fix the problem which was the affordability of insurance. That is economic. They understood it fine. They understood this bill would raise costs and do nothing to make insurance more affordable without ballooning our debt.

RJ

06-09-2010, 11:00 AM

I can never decide if I should believe the studies that say conservatives are smarter than liberals or the studies that say liberals are smarter than conservatives. Whenever I make up my mind I'm going to change my voter registration accordingly.

petegz28

06-09-2010, 11:07 AM

I can never decide if I should believe the studies that say conservatives are smarter than liberals or the studies that say liberals are smarter than conservatives. Whenever I make up my mind I'm going to change my voter registration accordingly.

From what I have read over the years they show that Liberals are more "educated" than conservatives.

Thus the old saying, "there's what the book says and then there is the way it is"

BucEyedPea

06-09-2010, 11:11 AM

I can never decide if I should believe the studies that say conservatives are smarter than liberals or the studies that say liberals are smarter than conservatives. Whenever I make up my mind I'm going to change my voter registration accordingly.

I don't think this is about who is smarter or dumber. I think there's both types on each side. It's on educated about a subject. A person can be very intelligent but miseducated or a recipient of disinformation/misinformation and believe it thoroughly. Someone like banyon and those that come from elite colleges like Harvard and Princeton. For example Krugman....he's loaded with false information. Direckshun isn't versed in the subject much at all imo. But he's very intelligent.

Taco John

06-09-2010, 11:19 AM

This is all political pablum, about electoral advantage and politics, and about how liberalism is self-defeating. If there's an economic argument I'm missing here, it's either completely unexpressed or completely unexplained. So who's veering?

Those are mildly interesting ideological and political issues, albeit ones he's raised about 1,000,000,000 x's before.

Either way, there's basically nothing to reply to.

Who said I wanted to have an economic discussion with someone as clueless about economics as you are in the first place. You argued in favor of the health care bill, right? So what the fuck do you know about economics then? What a joke!

Taco John

06-09-2010, 11:19 AM

This bill was not passed or opposed based on an understanding of economics.

That's for sure!

orange

06-09-2010, 11:25 AM

Is this guy seriously a professor??? I COMPLETELY agree with his conclusion... but his methodology is simply ridiculous. I feel extremely sorry for our youth who take classes from idiots like this... whether they are on the right or left...

Besides his piss poor, shoddy methods.. some of his questions are ridiculous as well...

There are PLENTY of reputable economists and even studies that would refute his takes on these... I do NOT want to get into a debate here but even I (an extreme fiscal conservative in many ways) can see how someone could be VERY well versed in economics and get these "wrong"

my conclusion... "study" FAIL

Absolutely correct.

Some more background info - the "guy" i.e. the economist had nothing to do with it. It was completely the work of the lady psychologist who did it specifically because she was unhappy with the results of previous surveys. It's her stated reason, right there in the paper. The economist came on board after she published a working paper. His contribution was mainly to dress up the paper and make it presentable. There were 21 questions originally - only eight were left after the most blatantly polemical were removed.

The whole thing is a farce. The questions are loaded, the pool of respondents is self-selecting and utterly unrepresentative of any possible population, and the surveyors are clearly biased.

On December 5, 2008, Zogby sent by email 63,986 invitations to the members of the panel... Zogby estimates that the number of invitations actually received to have been around 75%, or 47990. Of these, 6699 respondents started the survey and 4835 completed it by the close of the survey on December 8. This gives us a response rate of 14% and a completion rate of 10%.

...

Here again we should acknowledge that none of the eight questions challenge typical conservative or libertarian policy positions, and that had some such questions been included, the measured economic-enlightenment means by ideological groups may well have been somewhat different.

...

Of those answering each of the following questions, we found:
• Gender: 61.1% male, 38.9% female
• Highest level of schooling: 0.4% hadn’t graduated high school, 6.5% were
high school graduates, 27.5% had some college, 65.5% had a college degree
or more.

...

The questions treated by Walsted and Rebeck were typically answered correctly by about 70 percent of the samples they examine. In our survey, respondents scored much less well. We think that, for many respondents, economic understanding takes a vacation when economic enlightenment conflicts with establishment political sensibilities.

There have been better polls here on ChiefsPlanet. The frightening thing is that Buturovic "is currently a Research Associate at Zogby International." Such slipshoddery casts that whole organization in a bad light. This whole thing was written purely to provide talking points for the right-wing blogosphere.

banyon

06-09-2010, 12:02 PM

That's for sure!

(Insert Zinger, in lieu of responding to the substantive criticisms offered) [/Taco]

banyon

06-09-2010, 12:06 PM

Again, I disagree. Most of the people opposed the specific bill because it did nothing to address what needed to be fixed. Which was purely economic. Most people supported HC reform. Most people opposed this bill because of the reasons I stated earlier. It did nothing to fix the problem which was the affordability of insurance. That is economic. They understood it fine. They understood this bill would raise costs and do nothing to make insurance more affordable without ballooning our debt.

So, most of those people running around with "Keep the government out of my medicare" or "Obama is hitler" signs did so because of a nuanced view of economics? Is that what you are claiming?

Also, my criticism of this silly poll wasn't related to this tangent of yours limited to the health care bill (which I opposed, on several grounds, one of which was "economics" as the term is loosely being thrown around in this thread).

petegz28

06-09-2010, 12:20 PM

So, most of those people running around with "Keep the government out of my medicare" or "Obama is hitler" signs did so because of a nuanced view of economics? Is that what you are claiming?

Also, my criticism of this silly poll wasn't related to this tangent of yours limited to the health care bill (which I opposed, on several grounds, one of which was "economics" as the term is loosely being thrown around in this thread).

You're right, they were the majority :rolleyes:

The majority of the people who opposed that bill were against it for economic reasons. They were smart enought to see their costs would go up along with the debt.

The tangent I went on was for a reason. Which is many on the Left seem to be exploited for their ignorance of economics and base their decisions on emotion and what "feels good".

Taco John

06-09-2010, 12:24 PM

(Insert Zinger, in lieu of responding to the substantive criticisms offered) [/Taco]

If you had offered substantive criticism, I didn't see it. The enlightening take that people against Obamacare weren't against it solely for the economics isn't much of a revelation. I personally was against it not only for the economics, but also for the unconstitutional mandate that forced Americans to do business with insurance companies, even against their will.

The zinger was an appropriate response because it agreed with the only thing of substance you said.

banyon

06-09-2010, 01:01 PM

If you had offered substantive criticism, I didn't see it. The enlightening take that people against Obamacare weren't against it solely for the economics isn't much of a revelation. I personally was against it not only for the economics, but also for the unconstitutional mandate that forced Americans to do business with insurance companies, even against their will.

The zinger was an appropriate response because it agreed with the only thing of substance you said.

Great, i went point by point on every question in the poll. Feel free to jump back in when you are able to acknowledge/reply to that.

Orange also offered some pretty substantial problems with the poll.

banyon

06-09-2010, 01:01 PM

You're right, they were the majority :rolleyes:

The majority of the people who opposed that bill were against it for economic reasons. They were smart enought to see their costs would go up along with the debt.

Where did you get this information?

RJ

06-09-2010, 01:02 PM

I'll just go waaaaaay out on a limb here and say that most conservatives would believe this study to accurately reflect their own observations while most liberals would believe it does not reflect their own observations.

Awwww, how cute. TJ and BEP are trying to wade into the deep end again. ROFL

Chiefshrink

06-09-2010, 10:13 PM

But he's very intelligent.

I think you meant to say "educated". Intelligent????:rolleyes:

The problem we have is that out of the 535 reps in Washington how many have run a business and truly had to make payroll for an extended period of time in order to truly know how economics works "FOR REAL"??????????:rolleyes:

The majority have not and unfortunately they are making enormously bad economic decisions because they have no real world business experience. How INSANE IS THAT??????:shake:

Obama, Krugman and the Keynsian crew "ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE of a Government run economy that has ever worked in world history; It's all just "F'N THEORY" no facts to point to but then that is how the Progressive Marxists are never debating the facts because they lose 'everytime'!!:rolleyes:

cannon1988

06-09-2010, 11:13 PM

Obvious: Conservatives are too chicken shit to face the federal government and bow in its aura.

BucEyedPea

06-09-2010, 11:14 PM

I think you meant to say "educated". Intelligent????:rolleyes:

The problem we have is that out of the 535 reps in Washington how many have run a business and truly had to make payroll for an extended period of time in order to truly know how economics works "FOR REAL"??????????:rolleyes:

The majority have not and unfortunately they are making enormously bad economic decisions because they have no real world business experience. How INSANE IS THAT??????:shake:

Obama, Krugman and the Keynsian crew "ABSOLUTELY HAVE NO SUCCESSFUL EXAMPLE of a Government run economy that has ever worked in world history; It's all just "F'N THEORY" no facts to point to but then that is how the Progressive Marxists are never debating the facts because they lose 'everytime'!!:rolleyes:

Well, yeah but I think being a lefty stems more from personality type than just intelligence. Things like a lack of confidence in feeling able to secure the blessings of liberty to oneself. Fear, like of the big guy or the successful. I think a poll here was revealing of that. Or if they have that capability, they are too sympathetic at times to the point where'd they ruin the hand that feeds them. Or shall I say take everyone down to the downtrodden's level. That's not a solution.

I think your example of running a business is valid too. What type of person would take a chance like that over someone who prefers security with a govt job or to be scientist on a govt funded program or project though? Businesspeople are the risk takers.

Still, I think a lot of economics is just basic common sense....income is greater than outflow. You never save more than you spend. Many highly educated academics lack this while they sit in their ivory towers pontificating about how life should be in terms of outcomes based on what they desire as an outcome.

Then there are those that get educated into Marxism and don't even know it. So they remain willfully ignorant that it is what it is. Education is very much a factor too. Taught how to be victims or emphasizing victims more than winners. But also not how to really make it in a capitalism or handle money.

Chiefshrink

06-09-2010, 11:22 PM

Still, I think a lot of economics is just basic common sense....income is greater than outflow. You never save more than you spend. Many highly educated academics lack this while they sit in their ivory towers pontificating about how life should be in terms of outcomes based on what they desire as an outcome.

Then there are those that get educated into Marxism and don't even know it. So they remain willfully ignorant that it is what it is. Education is very much a factor too. Taught how to be victims or emphasizing victims more than winners. But also not how to really make it in a capitalism or handle money.

Infinitely ditto these 2 paragraphs you have written here. Sums it all up especially what is in bold. They don't know that there is another side to the economic coin because they are told it is just evil and have never had any real world experience to truly know and compare.

JohnnyV13

06-10-2010, 02:13 AM

The fact that you don't think he's discussing economics, but ideology, confirms the results of this survey. That's you veering off into ideology. The first step to
getting better is recognizing what economics is.

BTW 7/8 ths of life is economics.

I actually think biology is a more powerful force over human behavior than economics. Economics is simply the specialized human form of ecology: how a species makes its living from its environment.

In fact, people routinely make irrational economic decisions in order to maximize a biological imperative: generally to increase our perceived status or maximize attractiveness to the opposite sex (which is rooted in the biological imperative to get your genes into the next generation).

BucEyedPea

06-10-2010, 10:11 AM

I actually think biology is a more powerful force over human behavior than economics. Economics is simply the specialized human form of ecology: how a species makes its living from its environment.

In fact, people routinely make irrational economic decisions in order to maximize a biological imperative: generally to increase our perceived status or maximize attractiveness to the opposite sex (which is rooted in the biological imperative to get your genes into the next generation).
That's something a man would say.:D

ROYC75

06-10-2010, 12:06 PM

Liberals and economics should never be mentioned in the same article, much less a paragraph or sentence.

It's just not possible.

ROYC75

06-10-2010, 12:06 PM

That's something a man would say.:D

ROFL

JohnnyV13

06-11-2010, 02:50 AM

That's something a man would say.:D

LOLOL. Probably, especially within our culture. But, getting your genes into the next generation isn't solely a male concern. Females have similar drives, BUT, it plays out differently b/c females follow a "quality over quantity" approach relative to men--as in women tend to pursue high quality genes rather than volume of children.

Of course, women also can make some really bad decisions as to who possesses "high quality genes".

Actually, the interaction between economics and sociobiology is pretty interesting and I really wish I had the time to study it more.

This is an area where I think the Austrian school has many good points: IRRATIONAL economic choices made by actual decision makers.

I think that if sociobiologists understood economics, such individuals might really help create models that make such irrational economic choices more predictable.

BucEyedPea

06-11-2010, 09:53 AM

LOLOL. Probably, especially within our culture. But, getting your genes into the next generation isn't solely a male concern. Females have similar drives, BUT, it plays out differently b/c females follow a "quality over quantity" approach relative to men--as in women tend to pursue high quality genes rather than volume of children.

Of course, women also can make some really bad decisions as to who possesses "high quality genes".

Actually, the interaction between economics and sociobiology is pretty interesting and I really wish I had the time to study it more.

This is an area where I think the Austrian school has many good points: IRRATIONAL economic choices made by actual decision makers.

I think that if sociobiologists understood economics, such individuals might really help create models that make such irrational economic choices more predictable.

Some make irrational decisions. Not everyone. Some do it sometimes. Govt is one of those that make most irrational ones. More of the people who are inclined to do that go work in govt or run for office. So I guess winding up with a criminal govt is genetic per that line of reasoning. I think it's often irresponsible types. Other than that what is irrational to one is not to another. Some subjectivity in there. Hey, if you want to run with the genetic "why" feel free.